Is it morally right to value put your own life before any other in ANY situation?
Since nobody is ceirtan that there will be afterlife or reincarnation all that is left is nothingness, so no matter how many people you can save by sacrificing your life it wouldn't matter because as far as you know your world will be over and whether anyone appreciates your sacrifice will be irrelevant.

Pro is arguing that it means nothing to sacrifice yourself for somebody else. Let's first define morality.
Morality-a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
Now, I think that it is a very moral to sacrifice yourself. Let's also get one matter straight. We are arguing from the moral point of view, and not the it does not make any sense point of view.

Morality-It is generally agreed in society that one should not lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Morality was an idea developed in Ancient Greece to provide ideas for how the common man should behave. If every common man practiced these ideas, than the world would be a better place. One might say that it is idealistic for every common man to practice these ideas, because their will be rotten apples in every pile. We are not talking about that argument. This debate is about morality. Now, the idea of sacrificing yourself for others is a sign of extreme morality. If everyone was to practice the basic tenants of not to lie, cheat, steal, and sacrifice, I believe the world would be a better place. If everybody believed in these ideas, than we would live in a more calm and orderly world. That is what morality is designed to do. From the moral perspective, It is moral to sacrifice yourself, and will make this world a better place.

You say that it is morally right, yet it is irrational to do it because everything stops existing after you die, That's from the persons perspective. But i argue that it isn't even morally right from the perspective of observers because if you dont sacrifice yourself there is still a potential to save many other lives without risking your own directly or inderctly throughout your lifetime even by doing a simple thing like contributing to economy and that's at the very least. I know it sound's a bit sociopathic.

My opponent argues that the potential you have in your life outweighs the potential in other lives. I perceive this argument as selfish. I will give you examples of people that have risked there lives for people, and are still honored today. http://listverse.com...

Richard Rescorla was instrumental in the evacuation of thousands of people during the 9/11 attacks. As the director of security at Morgan Stanley, Rescorla was a stickler for his building"s safety and held twice-yearly evacuation drills to get people out.When the attacks happened and the tower next to Rescorla"s was hit, he put his plan into action and calmly instructed people to leave, right up until the moment he was killed. Rescorla"s actions were considered instrumental in the successful evacuation of over 2,500 people. R32;2,500 lives matter. One might ask the question that if there were more people like Rescorla we would live in a better world.

The bond between siblings is strong and unless you have one, it"s hard to explain the intense urge you feel to protect your kin. Ryan Arnold had that urge when his brother Chad desperately needed a liver transplant.R32;R32; Without thinking, Ryan immediately checked that he was a compatible donor. Discovering that he was, the transplant went ahead.As with all surgeries, there was risk and Ryan lost his life during the procedure. He"d made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that his brother could live. He risked his life.

There are countless more people that have done the same thing these people have done. They not only saved lives, but they saved families. They saved fathers, mothers, children, brothers, and sisters. This is what morality is. Morality is idealistic in nature, but idealistic things can become a reality. Pro said the person that could sacrifice shouldn't, because "doing a simple thing like contributing to economy". Rescorla saved 2,500 lives. Those are 2,500 lives that can do a "simple thing like contributing to the economy". One must see things through a moral lens. What Rescorla, Ryan, and countless others did should be the model for everything a human should be. Than we can live in something close to a honorable, orderly world.

Let's take hypothetical example. A person is 23 years old and enters a situation where he could save 4 persons with a 80% of him dying in the process. Let's think about it. Average life expectancy for him is about 75 years. Iet's say that he doesn't choose to save them and lives till 60. Don't you think that he would have saved many more lives even unknowingly during those 37 years? That is a long time during which many life changing and life saving things can be accomplished.

My opponent only offers a hypothetical in defense of all real world examples I have given. Pro introduces the idea of the 23 year old person being able to save many more lives during the 37 years. The problem with this is that it is a hypothetical. I have provided actual examples that have actual results. Richard Rescorla saved 2,500 people. If the reader is won by Pro's argument, than I can apply this logic onto this example. 2,500 people have probably 20, 30 years of live to live on. Why ignore them? The death of Rescorla could have possibly inspired them to do life saving things. We are arguing from the moral point of view. So far, Pro has not made one argument that has sounded moral, and more arguments that sound selfish to one's life. The debate is even titled morality. We have to look at this debate from a right and wrong point of view. Is it moral to risk your life for someone else? Yes, because it inspires others to become more moral as a result.

Reasons for voting decision: con uses real life sources to prove that people have saved others with more potential benefits than harms, while pro only gave suggestions with no solid evidence to back it up. Interesting objective morality definition (intentional-ism combined with utilitarianism) on con's side, would have been cool to see him in a "Morality is Objective" debate.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.